Envoys Hesitate To Report Bad News

My boss told me last night that this was coming out. Since I am one of the only FSOs in our office, he asked me what I thought. I told him that it is certainly sometimes true, particularly under the previous administration. (Like all things Foreign Service, the answer is "it depends.") I think I helped him shape his response.

EXCLUSIVE: Envoys Hesitate To Report Bad News
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Washington Times
By Nicholas Kralev

U.S. embassies are discouraging or suppressing negative reports to Washington about U.S. allies, sometimes depriving officials of information they need to make good policy decisions, current and former diplomats say.

One diplomat told The Washington Times that he has decided to resign in part because of frustration with "rampant self-censorship" by Foreign Service officers and their superiors that has gone so far as to ban "bad news" cables from countries that are friendly with the United States.

The diplomat, who asked that his name not be used for fear of retribution against himself and colleagues, said that, in one instance under the George W. Bush administration, an embassy in the Middle East did not report local government interference in elections. Senior management censored accounts of low morale at another Middle East mission that had been the target of terrorist attacks, he said.

More than a dozen diplomats serving in Washington and abroad told The Times that they agreed with most of the officer's critique, and that the censorship has continued to a lesser extent in the Obama administration. All asked not to be named to avoid retribution.

Thomas R. Pickering, a career diplomat for more than 40 years who rose to be undersecretary of state for political affairs under the Clinton administration, said the criticism is "well worth paying attention to."

"What worries me - and I have heard it before - is the expectation that reporting has to be tempered to fit the expectations and not the realities. This is dangerous and unprofessional and worse," Mr. Pickering said. "Some of it always existed and it was not confined to the political ambassadors alone, but it was more their expectation than among the pros. That is obviously now changing."

Current and former Foreign Service officers said the censorship reached a peak during the Bush administration. They attributed its continuation to a risk-averse institutional culture.

"Even in highly classified cables, people in the [Foreign Service] are very careful not to speak negatively about their host country," said the diplomat, who is resigning after three overseas assignments.

His ambassador declined to comment for this article. The officer has received consistently good evaluations, including a recent cable praising his work from the assistant secretary of state responsible for the region where he is serving.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said that a cable "represents the view of the chief of mission" who signs it, and that he or she therefore has ultimate responsibility for its content. That gives the top diplomat the power to edit a draft written by a lower-ranking officer.

Still, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton "appreciates those in the department who give her their honest assessment, and so does the administration," Mr. Crowley said.

In the Bush administration, he added, "there were various people with shortcuts around the interagency process, and the president didn't always get the best policy advice. This administration values all and different points of view."

"There may be a temptation to put a particular spin on a reporting cable, but the risk for a post is being seen as out of touch, because the department has other sources of information," he said.

Mr. Pickering noted that officers do have another outlet for their critical reporting: e-mails, which do not need clearance.

However, unlike a diplomatic cable, an e-mail is not an official document and is not read by the wide circle of policymakers.

"Unfortunately, the e-mail may get out, but it doesn't get widely seen and is not thus of policy significance and influence in the Washington reading community," he said.

The resigning officer said that, during one of his tours, his ambassador, a political appointee of President Bush, "flat out banned any 'bad-news' cables, and made it known at all levels that we were only to produce 'good-news stories' about our [host] country," a U.S. ally.

The officer said he had written "several cables critical of senior leaders" in his host country and about "interference by the government in the electoral process," but many of them "were either quashed or radically altered."

On the other hand, he said, negative cables are common regarding countries with strained relations with Washington, such as Burma, Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

Susan Johnson, president of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), the diplomats union, pointed out that the State Department has a dissent channel, through which officers can express disagreements with policy or other issues. However, there seems to be a widespread perception in the Foreign Service that the channel is almost "moribund," she said.

"People don't seem to believe in it anymore," Ms. Johnson said. "Having a functioning dissent process is vital for the health of the system and our foreign policy, and AFSA strongly supports it."

She said that AFSA has been struggling to find nominees for some of its annual dissent awards in recent years. As her organization's new president, she said, one of her missions will be "revitalizing dissent."

Several officers said that channel has been used few times because of the impression that the Bush administration did not welcome dissent.

Francis J. Ricciardone, deputy chief of mission in Afghanistan and a former ambassador to Egypt and the Philippines, said that his 31-year experience in the Foreign Service "may be unusual, but in any case it has not resembled what" the resigning officer described.

"Self-censorship most often is precisely that - self-imposed, from within oneself, not the larger organization," Mr. Ricciardone said.

"There have been a good many play-it-safe colleagues along the way, but I guess I have been lucky to serve with intellectually restless people of great integrity - and humor - who have known and shown me the art of pushing different thinking through exasperating bureaucracies, the fog of political correctness and, at times, doctrinaire self-delusion," he said.

Patricia Kushlis, a former career diplomat who now writes a blog on foreign affairs, WhirledView (http://whirledview.typepad.com), said that censorship "comes with a stultified bureaucracy and a [State] Department afraid to rock the boat for a variety of reasons - some good, others not."

"There were always legal ways around the system if one looks, and that's the hallmark of a good bureaucrat. Possibilities include e-mail, letters, telephone and simply briefing trusted journalists on deep background," she said.

Draft rule opens long-term care, leave programs to domestic partners

Found this today in Government Executive.

Draft rule opens long-term care, leave programs to domestic partners
By Alyssa Rosenberg

Citing changing demands on families and the need to recognize diversity, the Office of Personnel Management proposed regulations on Monday opening up the long-term care insurance program and certain leave programs to the same-sex partners of gay and lesbian federal employees.

"With America's changing demographics and socioeconomic trends, employees have increasing personal needs and family care obligations," Jerome Mikowicz, deputy associate director at OPM's Center for Pay and Leave Administration, wrote in the draft leave regulation. "OPM believes it is important to address the needs of a more diverse workforce. By ensuring consistent policies within the federal government we set an example as the model employer of a diverse workforce."

The draft regulations implement President Obama's June 17 memorandum expanding benefits available to the same-sex partners of gay and lesbian federal employees. In that memo, Obama also directed OPM to oversee agency-by-agency reviews of policies that could have disparate impacts on gay and lesbian federal employees. The results of those reviews are due to chief human capital officers on Sept. 15.

The proposed long-term care regulation would add same-sex domestic partners to the list of relatives eligible to enroll in the Federal Long-Term Care Insurance Program. Currently, that list includes spouses of heterosexual federal employees; their parents, step-parents or parents-in-law; and their adult biological, step or adoptive children.

The draft leave regulation would allow gay and lesbian employees to take sick, voluntary or emergency leave to care for domestic partners, and would define domestic partners as "immediate relatives" under the rules for taking leave for funerals.

Neither regulation would provide access to these benefits for heterosexual domestic partners of federal employees.

Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees union, praised the regulations, but said she still would like to see Congress pass the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act. President Obama has said without that legislation, his administration cannot give the partners of gay and lesbian federal employees access to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Obama has endorsed passage of the bill and supports a repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents the federal government from treating same-sex relationships the same way as heterosexual marriages.

Leonard Hirsch, president of Federal GLOBE, an affinity group for gay and lesbian federal employees, said OPM was doing the right thing in conducting a detailed agency-by-agency review of other policies affecting gay employees. Such a review is necessary, he said, because authorization and appropriations laws have imposed a patchwork of restrictions on agencies, and OPM needs a clearer picture of existing regulations before it can adopt strong governmentwide policies on issues such as relocation benefits.

"These are big issues that have to be thought through and worked through," Hirsch said. "It's a lot more complicated than it appears in common parlance."

Comments on both regulations are due by Nov. 13, and can be submitted at Regulations.gov. Comments on the long-term care regulation also can be mailed to:

John Cutler, Senior Policy Analyst, Insurance Policy Group
Strategic Human Resources Policy, Office of Personnel Management
1900 E Street, N.W., Room 3415
Washington, D.C. 20415
Comments on the leave regulation can be mailed to:

Jermoe D. Mikowicz, Deputy Associate Director
Center for Pay and Leave Administration
Office of Personnel Management, Room 7H31
900 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 02415

Responsibility for the ArmorGroup fiasco

I read in the Washington Post this morning a brief blurb that Under Secretary for Managemant Patrick Kennedy took responsibility for the lack of oversight of the ArmorGroup at Camp Sullivan.

Let me just say that in all my dealings with U/S Kennedy, he has been one of the most competent, professional, efficient, and NICE people I have worked with in the Department. And honest. He has had several opportunities to "blow hot air up my skirt" and never did. He tells you like it is.

So it doesn't surprise me to see him take rresponsibility, because he does manage, on a grand scale, both Diplomatic Security and the use of resources.

But he isn't the one who wasn't paying attention. I sincerely hope this doesn'y hurt him, because the Department needs him. There are some who should lose their jobs, but he isn't one of them.

Another Thing I Hate About Bidding

I don't have children. I don't plan to.

I have animals. Together, my partner and I have two cats, a dog and a bird. These are as close to having children as I plan to come.

Another kink in bidding is whether a country permits you to bring pets. For example, Cairo has positions that would work for both of us. But because of bird flu, they don't allow birds of any kind to be brought into the country.

So my African Grey could not come.

For me, that is a deal breaker. I have had her for 13 years, since she was four months old. I got her one month after my mother died.

She is my baby.

We give up a lot to be in the Foreign Service. We miss our nieces and nephews growing up. We miss precious time with our extended families. Milestones, birth, deaths and marriages, are the stuff of emails, not memories.

We shouldn't give up everything. In fact, I would argue that being willing to give up everything means you have a commitment to nothing. And I think that makes for a worse, not better, FSO.

So I am not bidding on Cairo.

The ArmorGroup Issue

I had not planned to discuss the ArmorGroup issue here. For those who haven't heard (though I think you'd have to be living under a very large rock not to), there are serious allegations of misconduct on the part of ArmorGroup, the contracting firm that handles security at our embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. Among other things, they are accused of hazing, being seriously understaffed, and of having language deficiencies among their staff. There are pictures from a party where the men are in various states of undress being pretty vulgar. There are charges that prostitutes were there as well, and even some allegations of human trafficking.

My boss said it made him embarrassed to be male. If I were male, I'd be embarrassed too.

Of course, there are additional charges as well, such as a charge of a lack of oversight on the part of the State Department.

A Sunday Washington Post article was particularly critical on the last point, especially given the issues with Blackwater a few years ago.

I don't defend the action of the folks in ArmorGroup at all. It was disgusting. And the nature of their vulgarity will cause many a wingnut to say that this was about homosexuality. But these guys are all straight. I'm not clear on why straight men feel the need to get drunk, get naked and feign sex with each other.

What I do want to say though, is that they are NOT representative of all contractors. I worked with contractors from two different companies while in Jerusalem. I found them to be very professional and I was happy to have them there. They kept us safe, never mistreated or disrespected any of the local staff or local community, and were never outrageous in their behavior. I was happy to have them there protecting me.

So the incident with ArmorGroup saddens me. We need these contractors because Diplomatic Security is not large enough to provide the kind of protection we need and the military is far too overstretched to do it.

And it makes the really well-trained, professional security folks look bad.

Maybe I Should Bid On Uruguay

...where I would have more rights than I do in the States:

Uruguay passes same-sex adoption law

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay (CNN) -- Uruguay became the first Latin American country to allow same-sex couples to adopt children after the Senate voted to approve a bill modifying the country's adoption statute.

"It is a right for the boys and the girls, not a right for the adults," Sen. Margarita Percovich said after the vote on Wednesday. "It streamlines the adoption process and does not discriminate."

The expected Senate approval followed the lower chamber of Congress' passage of the bill last month.

The law will pave the way for gays and lesbians to start a family, Daniel Alonso, a resident of the Uruguayan capital of Montevideo, told CNN.

"You have plans to form a family, to adopt. When you have a law that protects you, it makes you want to have a child," he said. "You feel part of society."

The adoption measure would be the most recent of progressive laws passed with the backing of President Tabare Vazquez.

Last year, lawmakers approved a measure allowing children aged 12 or older to change their names, a measure aimed at transgender or transsexual youths.

Uruguay also authorized same-sex civil unions last year, setting the stage for the current adoption law.

[...]

Public Diplomacy Front Line Working Group

Mountain Runner has this today:

Public Diplomacy Front Line Working Group, WHITE PAPER, "Public Diplomacy: A View from the Front Line," June 8, 2009. In this online statement, ten mid-level U.S. Foreign Service Officers "with no institutional memory of the U.S. Information Agency," provide recommendations to their senior leadership on ways to empower, integrate, and equip "a new generation of public diplomacy officers." Their white paper values field cooperation with embassy political and economic officers, networks with partners in other governments and civil society, embedding public diplomacy officers in the State Department's regional bureaus and policy process, technological and media savvy, restoration of USIA's Junior Officer training program, mid-level expanded training, and graduate-level education opportunities in public diplomacy and related fields at civilian universities.

The group has a Facebook page outlining their recommendations. I know several of the members of the working group (to say nothing of the number of its "fans" that I know), and they are a solid bunch. That such a working group and white paper should originate with them comes as no surprise to me.

But Is It The Best Place To Finish?

Good news for The State Department on the HR front:

BusinessWeek Ranks Department of State #5 Best Place to Launch a Career: The Department ranked at the top among federal agencies and #5 among all employers as one of the best places to begin a career. With an increase from #12 last year to #5 this year, BusinessWeek ranked the Department in the Top 20 for the fourth consecutive year. The ranking is based on a three-part methodology that includes combined survey data from careers services directors, undergraduate students, and employers.

I wonder if the new benefits for LGBT Foreign Service families helped improve our numbers. They say that offering partner benefits increases morale all around as people view a workplace as one that is fair and cares about its employees.

As Promised

The new issue of the Foreign Service Journal is now online. Below is Selim's letter and the Journal's response.

Don’t Publish Hate Mail

I am writing to object to your decision to publish the letter from retired FSO Richard Hoover (“Don’t Encourage Them!”) that appeared in your July-August issue.

When Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton took office in January, 2,200 current and former employees of foreign affairs agencies presented her with a letter asking that they be “treated equally and with the same respect,” regardless of sexual
orientation. What made this document truly historic was the gay-straight alliance formed in the workplace: 92 percent of the signatories did not have a Member of Household, meaning they were either single or married to someone of the opposite gender.

Wherever U.S. diplomats are posted overseas, we showcase to host communities an example of successful integration: different races, different religions, different ages and different sexual orientations working together effectively. The men and women of our Foreign Service truly believe in the very American value of “E Pluribus
Unum.”

Promotion of diversity is not a Republican value or a Democratic value; it is an American value. When President Ronald Reagan selected Edward Perkins as ambassador to South Africa, he did not worry that the appointment of an African-American would be “unacceptable,” as Mr. Hoover puts it, to the apartheid government. When Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama chose their respective Secretaries of State, they did not fear that sending a woman overseas might “project controversial views.” And last November’s results show that when we elected our first
African-American president, most voters did not think that installing a minority
candidate as head of state would “serve to undermine our work abroad.”

Today I woke up to my alarm clock, ate some cereal, drove to work, wrote a report and attended some meetings. On my way home, I will purchase milk and fruit. Later, I will make a phone call to my partner, who is unable to join me at this post. It is unclear which of these are the “habits” that Mr. Hoover claims are “unacceptable
to most American taxpayers.”

The State Department does not respect host-country biases when it assigns lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender staff to overseas posts, any more than it respects host-country biases concerning gender, race or religion. Today’s Foreign Service shows
the diversity of our nation better than ever before. From Khartoum to Kabul, our LGBT staff are proudly volunteering to serve their country. Wherever they are assigned, they — and their straight colleagues — are showing how diverse groups of Americans work side by side to advance freedom and basic human rights for all.

I cannot imagine that any other minority group would have to open the Foreign Service Journal to see letters that call on the department not to hire “greater numbers of those.” I would ask that from this day forward, there should similarly be no room in the Journal for such hurtful words towards LGBT staff.

Selim Ariturk
Economic Officer
Embassy Baku

Editor’s Note: We respectfully disagree with Mr. Ariturk’s assertion thatwe published hate mail. When an AFSA member submits a letter responding to an item in the FSJ — in this case, a May Speaking Out column that strongly advocated fair treatment for LGBT Foreign Service employees and their partners — our normal policy
is to publish it (subject to editing, of course).

Further, as our masthead (p. 4) in each issue states:“Material appearing herein represents the opinions of the writers, and does not necessarily represent
the views of the Journal, the Editorial Board or AFSA.”

Digger comments:
For the record, my feelings on publishing this letter stand. It was the wrong decision. It is one I hope AFSA gives some thought to, as they are the governing board of the journal. I am aware too that this was not the only letter criticizing the Journal's decision to publish Hoover's letter, and I find it interesting that they only published one and didn't mention that it was not the only one. Of course, I also know they initially tried to edit Selim's letter to remove the criticism of the Journal and make it only about Hoover's letter.

A Response to the Dinosaur

You might remember back in July, I wrote a post about Richard Hoover's letter to the Foreign Service Journal. In his letter, entitled Don't Encourage Them!, retired FSO Hoover, responding to a May 2009 "Speaking Out" column asking the Secretary to address inequities faced by LGBT Foreign Service families, said that the "sweeping shopping list will produce greater numbers of those whose habits are unacceptable to most American taxpayers, and perhaps more significantly, to the religions and cultures of most of the cultures in which we operate....In my view, the issue is not one of equality and fairness. The issue turns on what is fair for the Foreign Service, what best enables it to accomplish its mission.And that depends, in large part, on building relationships and projecting values."

Selim Ariturk has a response in the current Foreign Service Journal, which is unfortunately not yet available online. I received my copy in the mail yesterday. It is a well written response asking that the FSJ not publish such hate mail in the future. There is an editorial reply that they disagree that it is hate mail and that they routinely publish responses to features in the journal, such as the one Mr. Hoover was responding to. They added that their masthead states that letters do not neccessarily reflect the views of the Journal or its staff.

While I have no doubt that is true (I know members of the staff and am CERTAIN they disagree with Mr. Hoover), I also know they would not publish a similar letter about any other minority. Can you imagine, for example, that someone who had responded to the May 2009 column by saying, "Don't offer more benefits to encourage gays and lesbians to join. We already spend enough on all those Mormons who have joined, and we all know that most of the world objects to Mormonism." That could be true, much like many in the world object to gays and lesbians. We know that there are many places in the world where Mormonism, like homosexuality, is illegal. And even those who argue sexuality is a choice (it isn't) would also have to agree that religion too is a choice.

But that isn't what we are about. Discrimination is not one of OUR values, and part of why we serve overseas is to demonstrate OUR values, not absorb the values of others. So we send Mormons and LGBT folks to places where their very existence is a crime, because WE value diversity and freedom. We send women to places where women cannot drive, cannot vote, cannot be seen. Because WE value equality.

This is why I am proud to serve, and proud to serve as an out lesbian.

But to the point of the FSJ letter, had it been written discouraging more women or Mormons to join, it wouldn't have been printed. Because we know that kind of discrimination is wrong. The FSJ should recognize that this kind of discrimination against gays and lesbians is also wrong, and I don't want my dues to pay to print it. Especially not when I am still actively serving.

I am glad they published Selim's letter, which I hope to get a copy of for you soon. And I am glad dinosaurs like Hoover are part of our past and not our present. I hope the idea that we must publish letters calling for discrimination will soon be part of the Foreign Service Journal's past as well.

New HIV Policy at State

I finally made it back from vacation...not willingly, but I am back. This came into my in box while I was away and I wanted to share it with you.

State Dept. Settles, Changes HIV Policies
By Michelle Garcia

A U.S. Army veteran settled out of court with a federal contractor
after it denied him a job because he is HIV-positive.

The U.S. State Department, which contracts with the company that
denied employment to the man -- whose name was withheld -- has agreed
to policy changes that will prevent people with HIV from being
automatically barred from working under department contracts in the
future, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU filed the case in September 2008 against the State Department
and one of its contractors, Triple Canopy Inc. The suit claimed that
John Doe, as he is identified in court documents, was illegally fired,
violating the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans With Disabilities
Act.

A day before he finished training for a job providing security for the
Haitian embassy, Doe was told by a director for Triple Canopy that he
could not be employed because the State Department would not allow
workers with HIV to be deployed overseas. The department also mandated
that all contractor personnel be free from communicable diseases.

Doe is a 20-year veteran of the military who was diagnosed with HIV in
2000. He retired in 2001, and did contract work with the U.S. Defense
Department from 2004 to 2005, where he led security teams on military
bases. According to the ACLU, both the Army and the Defense Department
were aware of his HIV status and he was still able to serve as a
contractor in Iraq.

"I'm relieved that I can finally put this experience behind me and
move on with my life," the veteran said in a statement. "I feel a lot
better knowing that this kind of discrimination shouldn't happen
again."

Possible Hiatus

Speaking of taking comp time or overtime, I am finally getting a vacation. I did take a week off in May, but it was to work on an excavation. Lots of fun, but not restful. So after a year doing shift work and a year as a Special Assistant, I am exhausted. I need a vacation.

I say possible hiatus because I am not sure how my internet access will be for the next week. If it is good, and I can think of anything to write, I will. But I am returning to a place I visited last year, and then there was only dial up. So I am not optimistic.

On the plus side though, it means the crackberry work gave me won't work either. Darn. Out of range!

This Bothers Me

I learned something today that bugs me.

The new A-100 students are once again being told not to request comp time or overtime pay for the overtime they work.

Because "it isn't done."

First off, yes it is.

Second, it is important that you take it for several reasons (with the caveat that I know there are folks out there who will disagree with me).

The first reason it is important is because you have earned it. No, you shouldn't count every minute that you work over. You are supposed to be a professional. That said, there will be S visits, codels, etc that will require you to work lots of overtime and you will need the time off to recharge your batteries.

I didn't claim it at first when I got to Jerusalem, because I bought into that whole "it isn't done" line. We are all one big team. Hoo-rah! But soon you get tired, burned out. And so you have to claim the comp time so you can have a chance to rest. Because there is usually a lot of work. I ultimately ended up taking it as overtime pay because I could never get the time to use my comp time before it expired. And I left Jerusalem exhausted and ready to quit the Foreign Service.

So here is the deal. You WILL work more than 40 hours a week as a matter of course, both before and after tenure. After tenure, you will not be able to get overtime, though some positions, like my current one, so routinely require you to work more than 40 hours that you get a "differential" to make up some of the difference. Because you do need to have a life outside of this job or you will burn out. And the extra pay, while not giving you more time for a life, makes living it a little easier. Plus, once you are tenured, you have job security. You do not when you are not tenured. Overtime and comp time are the price the department pays for being able to get rid of you if they chose (they seldom do).

But a second reason you should claim comp time or overtime is to help with staffing. If you work 60-80 hours per week routinely in your section, but it is never documented, the Department will never know you are short staffed. So when they do hiring increases like they are doing now, they won't know your post needs more people because your work ethics are concealing that. I actually had a boss tell me he prefered Junior Officers claim it so he could demonstrate he needed more people.

So don't listen when the old timers tell you it isn't done. It is. And it is your right. And it is not legal for you to be denied it and your boss can't mention it in your EER.

And you are not less loyal to the Department for asking for it. You are just taking care of yourself so that you can continue to serve.

Good thoughts for the Afghanis

The Afghan elections are going on today, and from the news reports, it seems like the violence is not as bad as it could have been. This is a great relief to me, not just for the Afghan people, but selfishly, because I have very good friends there. I want them to come home safely.

I'd also love to see an Afghanistan that resembled the one pre-Taliban, pre-Russian invasion. Where the numbers of women in Parliament exceeded that of our own Congress. Where people were passionately democratic and religiously tolerant. I know that Afghanistan is a long way off, but I wish it for them none the less.

An unrelated note: You might have noticed I am writing more instead of just pasting articles with a little comment. The reason is two-fold. First, I missed writing. But perhaps more importantly, I began my new assignment about a month ago. My last assignment was one were I couldn't talk about my work. While I LOVED that work and that bureau, I am now in a position where I can talk about what I do and I am not having to filter what I talk about based on what I have read because everything I read is unclassified. And most of it is either in the press or related to it.

Yay for being a Public Diplomacy Officer!

Not even close to the only one!

Here is yet another link on bidding.

Complicated Vile Process AKA Bidding from Cats With Passports.

She calls it a "vile, vile process."

See, nobody likes it. As Diplodocus said, "Show me an officer who says they like bidding and I will show you a liar."

Amen Brother!

Even Baby Steps Move You In The Right Direction

We continue to move in the right direction here at the State Department. As I mentioned in my post on bidding this week, my partner and I are working on bidding for the first time as an official tandem, and today, we had an excellent meeting with her CDO (Career Development Officer) on our next steps in bidding. We are being treated exactly like other tandems, and that is exactly what we want. Equality. No more. No less.

The cable below is one more step towards equality. We were married in 2002 in our church, and while it did not have any legal binding, it is the only marriage that counts. That said, we do plan in November, on our 10th anniversary of being together, to be legally married in Massachusetts. But as I said, our real marriage happened in 2002.

That said, the cable below means that after our marriage, we could, if we decided to, change our names in our passports based on our marriage certificate. We don't plan to...we both like our names and even as children never planned to give them up. That said, it is nice to know we could if we wanted to. That we have the same options our straight colleagues do.

Baby steps, but steps.

Towards Equality. No more. No less.


UNCLASSIFIED STATE 00085355
R 171347Z AUG 09
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO ALL DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS COLLECTIVE
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 STATE 085355

ATTN: CONS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: CPAS, CASC, CMGT
SUBJECT: 7 FAM REVISION: 7 FAM 1359 APPENDIX C NAMES TO
BE USED IN PASSPORTS - CHANGE OF NAME BY OPERATION OF
LAW AND NAME CHANGE FOR USE IN U.S. PASSPORTS

[...]

2. The verbatim text of the 7 FAM 1359 revision
provides:

a. 22 CFR 51.25(a) states that "A passport shall be
issued in the full name of the applicant, generally the
name recorded in the evidence of nationality and
identity." 22 CFR 51.25(c) states that, "A name change
will be recognized for purposes of issuing a passport if
the name change occurs in one of the following ways.
...(4) Operation of state law. An applicant must present
operative government-issued legal documentation
declaring the name change or issued in the new name."

[...]

c. When a passport applicant assumes a new surname
(whether a totally new surname, the applicant's original
"maiden name", or a new hyphenated name) under the
provisions of state law, the applicant may have the
passport issued in the applicant's new surname.

Note: The Department may recognize a legal name change
based upon a marriage certificate because states
generally provide for lawful name change upon marriage.
The Department is not recognizing the marriage
certificate for purposes of upholding or determining the
validity or the status of the marriage. With respect to
passport issuance the Department does not address the
matter of marriage validity but is addressing only a
state-recognized legal name change.

[...]

f. The Department recognizes other name changes,
provided they are recognized by operation of state law,
established by customary usage, or effected by court
order. If not on the PRI listing, applicants seeking to
establish a name change based on a certificate of civil
union or certificate of domestic relationship have the
burden to show that state law recognizes the name change
by operation of law. If the state recognizes a legal
name change based upon the certificate of civil union or
certificate of domestic relationship, please then refer
to sections b through d above.

[...]

(2) A certificate of civil union or certificates of a
domestic relationship can be accepted as one of the
public documents submitted in support o f a customary
name change. Name changes by customary usage must be
supported by documentary evidence of use of the new name
for a period of five years, that is, three original or
certified copies of public records that show the
applicant's name, date and place of birth and use of the
assumed name for five years. Original or certified
copies of certificates of civil union or certificates of
domestic relationship cannot be accepted as the only
documentary evidence of a customary name change but may
be one document evidencing customary usage.

[...]

Climate refugees?

We have protestors again. I can see these folks from my window. Actually, as I have mentioned earlier, I can see most protests at the State Department from my window. They deliberately pick this entrance because of its high visibility and proximity to the door the journalists go in.

Many of the protests are, shall we say, unclear. So we were all curious about "climate refugees." According to their website, this is what is going on:

"This Monday morning, the Avaaz Climate Action Factory, in solidarity with climate refugees across the world, will erect a refugee camp right in front of the US State Department in Washington DC. We will brave the 95 degree heat to demand that Clinton include language recognizing and protecting climate refugees in the negotiating text. We’re going to be there all day, and all night and…"

Some days my window is far more entertaining than TV.

A Reason to Be Thankful

There was a car bomb today near the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan. No doubt the idea was to send the message to prospective voters for next week's presidential election to stay home.

From the coverage I have seen, that message was received by some. I hope not many.

None of the folks at the mission were hurt, and they have all been accounted for. For this, I am extremely grateful. I have friends there, including one very close friend. Until she left for Kabul last month, we had continued our tradition, begun in Jerusalem, of having dinner together once a week or so with a group of friends. Aside from my partner, she is one of my very best friends, and one of the people that make me think I should stay in the service because without it, I'd have never met her.

I hope everyone in Afghanistan stays safe and comes home soon.

Bidding

So I thought I would give you a break from my usual fare and take this moment to complain about bidding. I can even pretend you are a captive audience, at least until I look at my sitemeter to see that you stayed on the page just long enough to get to the word complain.

For those of you still here, bidding is awful. I know when you think about it from outside the Foreign Service, it probably sounds cool. Wow, you get a list of all of these cool places to choose from. The world is your oyster. It is true that you get a list. It is also true there are *some* cool places on there. There are far more "oh hell no" places on there.

This is my fourth time bidding in the past four years. It is my own fault really, since I have been doing one year tours. So I am bidding now less than a month into my new job. That is also the nature of one year tours.

Bidding is ALWAYS hard. You don't get the list of all the cool places and go to the one you choose. You have to select six places for which you are at grade and in cone. For me, that means I have to pick a public diplomacy or interfunctional (they count as any cone) job. But really it has to be public diplomacy, because I am currently doing my fourth tour and only my first PD assignment (the joys of directed assignments for your first two tours include being somewhat unlikely to do a tour in your cone). I need to use this tour to make the connections to get an overseas PD tour now or I will have a hard time EVER getting one. And I want to do PD work...it is why I chose this cone. Those six jobs also have to be at my rank, though I can also bid on jobs one grade above my rank (this is called a "stretch," and not because you are unlikely to get it, though in the age of linked assignments, that too is true). Most of the PD jobs overseas would be a stretch for me, which means that even if post loves me and wants me, someone who is at grade and in cone can come in at the last moment and take the job. Even if post doesn't want them.

An additional pain in bidding is the whole concept of lobbying. It is not what you know but who you know. I got my current job because someone knew me and only because of that. Luckily for them, I am also good at my job (IMHO). But really, I didn't want it to be that way. I wanted to send my resume and have them say, "she look's interesting. Let's interview her." And then let me sell myself.

But no. I have to find people who know me and know who I am applying to. to make calls for me. And hope my big dog is bigger than someone else's big dog.

This year, we have an added twist. My partner and I are, for the first time, an official tandem. So I am having to learn to work that system. Jerusalem was easy. It was directed. and I now see why so many tandem couples spend much of their careers in DC. It is just easier to find jobs here.

So now, since was asked to take a one-year job instead of the two year job I had been assigned to (the one year job is more prestigious and I hope gets me a big enough dog in my corner), my partner and I are off cycle. She is in her job a year longer than I am in mine. So I am trying to find jobs where the timing will work out given language training, her rank, my rank, and our cones. So far, in the bureaus where we have connections, I have come up with four places. But I have no idea what will happen or whether any of it will happen. My one ace is that I can extend in this job if we can't find something that works, but that means doing this whole exercise all over again next year.

And I really hate bidding.

Lest you think I am just whining, I offer you the following fellow suffers:

Diplopundit: Bidding Sucks, No, Really...

Email from the Embassy: Apples vs. elephants: The Bidding Process

Diplodocus: So Where Have I Been?

Girl In The Rain: The Bid List Is Out

Public Diplomacy Reserve Corps

An interesting article on public diplomacy at Understanding Government:

PUBLIC DIPLOMACY: MORE PEOPLE NEEDED TO DO MORE FOR AMERICA ABROAD

By Mitchell Polman

Washington, D.C. — Defining “public diplomacy” is almost a cottage industry among bloggers and others interested in the way America interacts with foreign states and audiences. The term "public diplomacy" was first coined by Dean Edmund Gullion of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in 1965. Gullion called it " . . . influencing the way groups and peoples in other countries think about foreign affairs, react to our policies, and affect the policies of their respective governments." Public diplomacy blogger Matt Armstrong has devoted thousands of words to this topic, including these: "The purpose of public diplomacy is to identify, empower, encourage (and possibly equip) self-organizing systems." Perhaps the most widely accepted definition today is the one offered by retired diplomat and public diplomacy expert Hans Tuch, in his book Communicating with the World: U.S. Public Diplomacy Overseas says public diplomacy is "a government process to communicate with foreign publics in an attempt to bring about understanding of its nation’s ideas and ideals, its institutions and culture as well as its national goals and current policies.”

While the definition may be debated, there is one aspect of America’s public diplomacy efforts that is not subject to much argument: the need for the department to recruit more people to work on it. Given the wide range of issues “PD” foreign service officers are responsible for – they serve as press and information officers, sign people up for government-sponsored exchange programs, conduct cultural programs, promote English language education, and oversee American libraries and other cultural resource centers, among other things – it’s no surprise that, given the State Department’s overall Foreign Service staffing problems, the public diplomacy area is also feeling squeezed.

To address this problem, the State Department needs both to revamp its traditional hiring procedures and to look at some innovative approaches.

When candidates for the department’s Foreign Service register take the entrance examination, they select the area of expertise they wish to build their careers in from five "cones," including administrative, consular, economic, political, and public diplomacy. The staffing shortage mentioned above is particularly acute in the public diplomacy cone. The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy in 2008 published a report called "Getting the People Part Right," which states that as of 2007, public diplomacy had the second fewest number of officers of among Foreign Service cones.

The shortage is seriously hampering the State Department’s public diplomacy mission because most public diplomacy work is currently being carried out by junior level officers who are stretched too thin. As a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, entitled U.S. Public Diplomacy: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight, asserts, the State Department is facing a shortage of mid-level public diplomacy officers that will take years to erase. Even more significantly, the GAO notes that this lack of public diplomacy personnel is preventing the State Department from effectively spending the funds Congress has allotted specifically for public diplomacy. So the nation’s ability to communicate and interact with foreign publics is clearly hampered by the lack of personnel.

Of course, this is about more than just the number of public diplomacy personnel. The State Department also needs people with the right mix of skills. Some public diplomacy officers, for example, have strong media relations skills, but lack foreign language training. Others may have strong language skills, but little in the way of media outreach experience.

State Department Tests a Better Test

Gaps like these were one of the reasons that the Foreign Service in 2007 moved towards a "total candidate approach" in its examination process. The new Foreign Service examination places a greater emphasis on actual work experience. For example, the newly revised Foreign Service Oral Exam includes a "Qualification Evaluation Panel" (QEP) that factors the actual real world experience of a candidate into the exam score. Consequently, a candidate for the public diplomacy cone who has media or cultural exchange experience, for example, gets a higher score because of that experience. This has made it easier for the Foreign Service to identify and recruit candidates who would make suitable Public Diplomacy officers. The Advisory Commission reports that public diplomacy is now the second most popular cone choice of those taking the oral exams (political being most popular).

There is, however, still room for improvement in the examination process. David Firestein, a career foreign service officer, is also Deputy Executive Director of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. Firestein believes that the QEP has been instrumental in helping the department identify suitable candidates for public diplomacy work. However, he comments that "…even today the public diplomacy knowledge does not come through on this exam to the degree that it probably should" and adds that those designing the foreign service exam “ . . . haven’t yet built . . . a public diplomacy exercise” into the test. Finally, Firestein notes that State is “not recruiting specifically for PD expertise or testing for it either." Thus, the advisory commission report recommended that State test candidates for specific public diplomacy skills and criticized the department for not actively promoting Public Diplomacy Officers to senior level positions within the department.

Congress has been listening closely to the Advisory Commission on this issue. The FY2010 appropriations bill for the Department of State (H.R. 2410) contains most of the commission’s proposals for strengthening U.S. public diplomacy. Amongst those proposals is a long standing recommendation to create a Public Diplomacy Reserve Corps (PDRC) that would recruit Foreign Service retirees and others with public diplomacy experience to fill public diplomacy related vacancies at the State Department. The act specifically states: "The Secretary of State is authorized to establish in the Foreign Service a Public Diplomacy Reserve Corps consisting of mid- and senior-level former Foreign Service officers and other individuals with experience in the private or public sector relevant to public diplomacy, to serve for a period of six months to two years in postings abroad."

But would a PDRC make it difficult for more junior level public diplomacy officers to move up in the ranks? Firestein calls that "a fair question" and says that it’s a concern that "…deserves attention and a longer term strategy." But given that the House resolution on DOS funding specifically mentions “other individuals with experience in the private or public sector relevant to public diplomacy,” it is time for creative solutions.

A Good Time for Change and Innovation

Some suggest that the best use of a reserve corps would be at home, rather than abroad. William P. Kiehl, a former Foreign Service Officer and public diplomacy specialist, commented that the best use of a public diplomacy reservist might be as a "… desk officer in Washington for an area that he or she knows well and has served in multiple times.” Kiehl said this kind of reinforcement at Foggy Bottom would help ensure a higher degree of “background in the country and culture of the region currently lacking as most Country Affairs Officers currently have little or no expertise in either the region/country or in public diplomacy." But given the language problems the Foreign Service still faces – the May 2009 GAO report said that fully 25% of officers designated for public diplomacy positions did not meet the language requirements – sending experts abroad to help may be more important. Retired Foreign Service Officer and public diplomacy blogger John Brown said he feels the proposed PDRC makes a lot of sense, "especially if the chosen officers are sent to countries where they would be able to speak the local language."

This is an ideal time not just for revamping public diplomacy, but for exploring fresh approaches to staffing this area of the State Department’s portfolio. It looks like the growing focus on public diplomacy – after several rocky years in the Bush administration, especially early on, when public diplomacy was not in favor – is dovetailing with the Foreign Service’s own personnel requirements. The State Department might consider developing the PDRC not just as a way for retirees and public diplomacy professionals to pitch in, but as a channel for both younger people and mid-career professionals from outside the department who are interested in public diplomacy careers. The number of Foreign Service candidates expressing an interest in public diplomacy is on the rise, but until now the State Department has not even had enough staff on hand to expend all the funds allotted for public diplomacy.

The PDRC could serve as an ideal training program for candidates awaiting background checks, recent graduates, and people considering a career in public diplomacy, including mid-career professionals who may be interested in a State Department career. These might be public diplomacy fellows, or trainees, who would be drawn from outside the Foreign Service and might then go on to enter the service itself as career officers. If these people brought in media and public relations skills fundamental to public diplomacy, the State Department would benefit and its public diplomacy efforts would be more effective. As it is currently, the State Department hires many independent contractors to perform work on its public diplomacy programs. A number of those positions could be filled by PDRC members.

The Public Diplomacy Reserve Corps appears to be a step in the right direction, but it could also be used as a recruiting tool for the department, as well as a way to fill gaps in personnel. The political stars are aligned in such a way as to make bold changes on the public diplomacy front possible. The State Department has the support of the new administration and Congress to come up with creative solutions to longstanding and very persistent problems – just at the time when the world is opening up to a new image and understanding of America.

USAID follows suit

We knew that when State extended benefits to same-sex partners, many of the agencies that come under Chief of Mission authority while overseas would follow suit. USAID is the first. The announcement below came out Tuesday...yes, I am slow getting it out. My AID friends let me down! :)

USAID/General Notice
ADMINISTRATOR A/AID
8/4/2009

Subject: Implementing Benefits for Same-Sex Domestic Partners of Foreign Service Employees Serving Overseas

This past June, Secretary Clinton announced that the Department of State is extending the full range of legally available benefits and allowances to same-sex domestic partners of Foreign Service employees serving overseas. We are pleased to announce that USAID is joining the Department of State in implementing this new policy. In addition, we are including U.S. Personal Services Contractors (USPSCs) posted overseas.

Extending such benefits and allowances to same-sex domestic partners will help USAID attract and retain well qualified-staff in a competitive environment where domestic partner benefits are becoming increasingly prevalent.

The following Q&As detail the new policy and procedures USAID employees must follow in order to obtain benefits. M/OAA will issue separate guidance for USPSCs in the near future.

1. What specific changes are being made and how are they being implemented?

To implement this new policy, the Department of State made interim changes to the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) effective June 26, 2009. The interim changes to the Standardized Regulations (DSSR) carry an effective date of July 5, 2009. For additional information, refer to 09 STATE 066740 (Attachment 1) and 09 State 067315 (Attachment 2).

The interim changes to the FAM and DSSR permit same-sex domestic partners of Foreign Service employees to qualify as family members for a variety of benefits and allowances. These benefits and allowances include:

• Diplomatic passports;
• Inclusion on employee travel orders to and from overseas posts;
• Shipment of household effects;
• Inclusion in family size calculations for the purpose of making housing allocations;
• Family member preference for overseas employment;
• Use of medical facilities at posts overseas;
• Medical evacuation from posts overseas;
• Emergency travel for partners to visit gravely ill or injured employees and relatives;
• Inclusion as family members for emergency evacuation from posts overseas;
• Subsistence payments related to emergency evacuation from posts overseas;
• Inclusion in calculations of payments of overseas allowances (for example, payment for quarters, cost of living,
and other allowances);
• Representation expenses, and
• Training at the Foreign Service Institute.

Where appropriate, this extension of benefits and allowances will apply to the children of same-sex domestic partners, as well.

Interim changes to the FAM and DSSR may be accessed from the Office of Human Resources’ Web page at http://inside.usaid.gov/HR/benefits/index.cfm. Employees should review these changes to understand the full range of benefits and allowances extended to same-sex domestic partners of Foreign Service employees serving overseas.

2. What is the process for obtaining benefits?

To obtain benefits for their same-sex domestic partners, employees must file an affidavit of eligibility for benefits and obligations (Attachment 3) and update their OF-126, Residence and Dependency Report.

Consistent with criteria set forth in 3 FAM 1610, the affidavit must affirm, among other things, that the employee and his or her domestic partner:

• are each other’s sole domestic partner and intend to remain committed to one another indefinitely;
• have a common residence and intend to continue the arrangement;
• are at least 18 years of age and mentally competent to consent to contract;
• share responsibility for a significant measure of each other’s common welfare and financial obligations;
• are not married to, joined in civil union with, or domestic partners with anyone else; and
• are same-sex domestic partners and not related in a way that would prohibit legal marriage in the State in which
they reside.

3. What are the next steps?

Foreign Service employees who seek benefits for their same-sex domestic partners should work with their servicing Human Resources Specialist in OHR/FSP. To obtain benefits, employees must provide OHR/FSP staff with the following:

• An affidavit of eligibility for benefits and obligations (Attachment 3); and

• An amended Residency and Dependency Report (Form OF-126) to add “domestic partner” in the box requesting “relationship.” The OF-126 may be accessed from the Agency’s Forms Web page. Employees may file these forms immediately.

Domestic partners must also comply with the same security requirements and undergo the same background check as spouses. Domestic partners must also have a valid medical clearance for the post of assignment. Those already at post should follow the procedures for a newly acquired dependent. They will be given access to the overseas health unit for up to 90 days pending completion of their medical clearance. It is important to note that domestic partners must have health insurance, as the Agency acts only as a secondary payer in the event of overseas hospitalization.

4. Where can I find additional information?

The Office of Human Resources has developed a Web page with various references and documents. This information is located at http://inside.usaid.gov/HR/benefits/index.cfm. Additional instructions and guidance will be provided in the near future regarding specific benefits.

Attachments: (1) 09 STATE 066740
(2) 09 STATE 067315
(3) Affidavit


Alonzo L. Fulgham
Acting Administrator

Sad Anniversary

Tomorrow will be the 11th anniversary of the terrorist attack on our Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. More than 200 people were killed in those attacks.

Today, during her trip to Africa, Secretary Clinton honored the victims of those attacks by placing a wreath at the memorial on the site of the Kenya attack. She also signed the guestbook and met with survivors.

She said the site is a reminder of "the continuing threat of terrorism, which respects no boundaries, no race, ethnicity or religion, but is aimed at disrupting and denying the opportunity of people to make their own decisions and to lead their own lives.''

She vowed to "to renew our resolve to do all that we can to ensure that these attacks don't take more innocent lives in the future.''

Some of those behind the attacks have not yet been brought to justice and are being sheltered in neighboring Somalia.

Let's hope they get what they deserve soon.

A Thank You Toast

I just attended a thank you toast held by GLIFAA in the Delegates Lounge at Main State. The idea was to thank everyone who worked on getting the benefits the Secretary announced in June, particularly the 2,200 people who signed the letter to Secretary Clinton that GLIFAA delivered in January and all of the people who worked behind the scenes to make it happen.

U/S for Management Pat Kennedy, who is GLIFAA's official mentor (and has been an unwavering allie for LGBT Foreign Service families, said the benefits that were extended were the "rational and human thing to do, because you can't expect people to stay in [dangerous] places when they are separated from their loved ones." He said the extention of benefits was both the right thing to do in terms of business sense and the moral thing to do.

The next step of course in Congress. Currently, there are efforts towards passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) and we hope same-sex partners will be included in those efforts. And there is the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, which will, among other things, extend health insurance benefits to same-sex partners. Both of these will directly impact the lives of LGBT Foreign Service families.

I think we have some great allies in the Department to help us reach those goals.

Can do!

I just had to share this with you, and not just because it starts off with America's first diplomat, Benjamin Franklin, but because it is about who we are:

Can do - And the Pursuit of Happiness Blog by Maira Kalman

I especially like this part:

"Everything is invented.
Language. Childhood. Careers.
Relationships. Religion.
Philosophy. The Future.
The are not just there for the plucking.
They don't exist in some
natural state.
They must be invented by people.
And that, of course, is a great thing.
That is the American message.
Electricity. Flight. The Telephone.
Television. Computers. Walking on
The Moon. It Never Stops."

The Cable: Levin lifts hold on State Near East official, bureau makes senior appointments

From The Cable at Foreign Policy. If you read this blog regularly, you know I am delighted that Ambassador Feltman has gotten this position and even more delight that the hold up has been removed. (The last time I said I was glad he got the job and how much I thought of him, he thanked me for the kind words. So much for anonymity!). What you don't know is that I also served with his new DAS, Maura Connelly, in Jerusalem when she was the Deputy Principle Officer, and I think she is fabulous as well. I think under their leadership, NEA is in great stead!

UPDATED: Levin lifts hold on State Near East official, bureau makes senior appointments

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) lifted his hold today on the confirmation of Jeffrey Feltman to be assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, a Levin staffer tells Foreign Policy. The move clears Feltman to be confirmed by the Senate by unanimous consent, perhaps even as early as tonight, a Hill foreign policy aide said, adding he doubted there would be a need for a roll-call vote.

As previously reported, Levin had been exercising the hold on the senior Near East appointment to pressure the administration to make eligible for Libyan relief compensation funds an Italian-born constituent who had been wounded in a 1985 terrorist attack on Rome's airport. Feltman, who has recused himself from the case, has declined to comment.

Meantime, sources say, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Richard Verma has gone to Levin with two offers in the past month trying to resolve the issue. The Michigan Democrat apparently didn't find either offer satisfactory, while word from State after the second go-round was that Levin had "raised the bar."

Levin's office declined to say how the matter was resolved today. Earlier Thursday, it had declined to comment on the matter. Verma has not responded to queries.

Last year, Levin had received a letter from a former top Bush administration State Department official that would have met his requirements, a Washington Middle East hand previously explained on condition of anonymity, but had been unable to get the U.S. government to follow through on whatever that letter promised regarding extending eligibility for Libya relief funds for his constituent.

Feltman, a well-liked career foreign service officer and former ambassador to Lebanon who assumed the role of acting head of the NEA bureau after the retirement of David Welch last December, has had some other unreported good news of late.

He was finally able earlier this month to make senior hires in the bureau. Among the most senior NEA appointments, Ronald L. Schlicher, a former ambassador to Cyprus and consul general in Jerusalem, came on as Feltman's PDAS on July 20. Schlicher oversees all the other DASes in the bureau, and has "executive section" authorities to make decisions on IT, budgets, personnel, human resources, funding and staffing. The State Department's Iran office, directed by Todd Schwartz, also reports to Schlicher.

Bureau DAS appointments that were finalized in the past couple weeks: Janet Sanderson, a former U.S. ambassador to Haiti and deputy chief of mission in Amman, became the DAS for the Maghreb and Arab Peninsula earlier this week. Michael Corbin, a former US charge d'affaires in Damascus and official in Iraq, became the new DAS for Iraq. Maura Connelly came on July 13 as the DAS for Israel, Palestine, Egypt and the Levant. Madeleine Spirnak continues to serve as the acting DAS for public diplomacy and the Middle East Partnership Initiative.

The Cable previously reported that the Brookings Institution's Tamara Cofman Wittes is a candidate to become the DAS for Middle East democracy/Arab reform issues. (Wittes, who previously declined to comment, couldn't be reached Thursday.)

"Every bureau has a set number of DAS slots, some Foreign Service, some Civil Service (in regional bureaus like NEA, most are Foreign Service)," a State Department official explained. "A few are Schedule C (political appointees). Each bureau has the right to fill those jobs as it sees fit, once the candidate is approved by a senior personnel review committee. A Senate hold wouldn't necessarily hold up that process."

One source speaking not for attribution said a new senior NEA official had recently remarked that he did not know how Feltman had managed to run the bureau (which after all counts in its map Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Libya among a few warm spots) without getting his team in place for this long - almost eight months. Feltman, currently attending a Centcom conference, also recently lost a day sitting through jury selection (he wasn't ultimately picked), a department hand said.

The hold on Feltman's confirmation became an issue at the State Department press briefing yesterday. Asked by a reporter if Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had spoken to her former Senate colleague on the matter, spokesman Ian Kelly said, "Well, of course, we're all looking forward to having Jeff become the confirmed assistant secretary. There's a lot of important diplomatic activity under his purview in North Africa and the Middle East. I know the Secretary is eager to have him come on board as a full-fledged assistant secretary, but I don't think I'm prepared to talk about what exactly she's done with Congress."

Later on, a reporter opined to Kelly, this is "a political holdup by a member of Congress because of an issue that has nothing to do with his nomination," before throwing in a question, "What can you do about it to end the standoff?"

G4 Visas for World Bank domestic partners

I received this via email today:

"One of the priority areas of work for GLOBE has been to work on the visa situation of domestic partners and spouses of marriages that are not recognized by the United States. As you know, the World Bank President has sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to ask her attention for the problems that many of our LGBT colleagues and their partners are facing. We are now happy to report that the State Department has moved partially in the right direction. A new rule was announced on providing G4 visa to domestic partners and spouses of un-recognized marriages on the basis that these relationships are recognized in the country of origin. Partners will receive G4 visa as "immediate family" of the World Bank staff concerned, provided proof can be given that the relationship is recognized by the "sending Government".

This is very good news and it will solve problems that many LGBT colleagues are facing. However, it will not solve the situation for those of us who come from countries where our relationships are not recognized, even if the World Bank does recognize our relationship. Furthermore, it is not clear what would happen if the relationship would be recognized in principle, but has not been registered in the home country, because in such cases the required proof of "immediate family" in the new definition may not be available.

One last issue is that the G4's for partners at this moment in time will not lead to work permits in the US, because work permits are provided by the Department of Homeland Security, and that Department has not yet taken the new rule into consideration for its own policies and rules and regulations.

These issues may take time. But we definitely hope to see some of the problem cases of colleagues solved in the very near future!

Tarek M. Soueid,
Chair
World Bank GLOBE "

HRC: Details on Today’s DPBO Markup

From today's Human Rights Campaign Backstory

Details on Today’s DPBO Markup

UPDATE: Today’s Subcommittee markup of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, while ultimately successful, did see an attempt by the Republican minority to distort and derail the bill. Subcommittee Republicans — Representatives Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Mark Souder (R-IN) and Brian Bilbray (R-CA) — attempted to frame the issue as a referendum on marriage, arguing that this bill devalues traditional marriage. Furthermore, they argued that employment benefits historically have been given to traditional married couples, with the intent that one parent was staying at home to take care of the children.

Dismissing this outdated, inaccurate notion and recognizing that many families today have both parents working full-time, Chairman Stephen Lynch (D-MA) and Representatives Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), William Lacy Clay (D-MO) and Gerry Connolly (D-VA) recognized that DPBO is about equal pay for equal work.

During the markup, Representative Bilbray attempted to kill the bill with an amendment to expand the extension of benefits to any federal employees who are in a domestic partnership — same-sex or opposite-sex — claiming that it would be unfair to exclude different-sex couples from coverage. However, opposite-sex couples already have access to complete family benefits under federal law. To gain access to these benefits, they simply have to marry. In contrast, marriage is only available to same-sex couples in six states, and even if they do legally marry, they still do not have access to federal civilian employment benefits such as health and retirement benefits for their families. The Bilbray amendment was not about fairness, or even about giving different-sex couples a new manner of securing family benefits. It was about making the bill more expensive so that it would fail. And while HRC does not oppose providing benefits to all families, we support the existing bill and applaud any attempts to prevent poison pills from standing in the way of domestic partner benefits. The Bilbray amendment failed on a voice vote.

Lastly, a Chairman’s amendment to expand DPBO to include annuitants (recipients of an annuity) passed the committee by a vote of 5-3. The bill as amended then passed the Subcommittee by a vote of 5-3.

DPBO now moves ahead to consideration by the full House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. We will continue working with our coalition partners — including the American Federation of Government Employees; Center for American Progress Action Fund; Family Equality Council; Federal GLOBE; Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN); Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA); GOProud; National Coalition for LGBT Health; National Air Traffic Controllers; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU); Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG); National Pride at Work, AFL-CIO and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — to push this bill until it reaches the President’s desk for signature.

Brought to you courtesy of the dark ages

I don't know Richard W. Hoover of Front Royal, Virginia, but the self-identified retired FSO certainly represents the bad old days of the Foreign Service.

In his letter in the current issue of the Foreign Service Journal, titled "Don't Encourage Them," he responds to a May 2009 article asking that the Secretary address the inequities facing LGBT Foreign Service families. He says that the article's "sweeping shopping list will produce greater numbers of those whose habits are unacceptable to most American taxpayers, and perhaps more significantly, to the religions and cultures of most of the cultures in which we operate."

He goes on to say that "In my view, the issue is not one of equality and fairness. The issue turns on what is fair for the Foreign Service, what best enables it to accomplish its mission.And that depends, in large part, on building relationships and projecting values."

First, I take issue with his point that our "habits" are unacceptable to most Americans. The latest polling shows a steady increase in support for gay rights, including that 75% of Americans now support allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military and more than half of the country supports at least civil unions.

Further, I agree completely that we should be projecting our values. In fact, one of the things I am proudest of in my service is that we are willing to demonstrate that we value diversity to the world in our appointments of Ambassadors and Secretaries of State. Remember when we appointed a black ambassador to apartaid South Africa? We were sending a message that we didn't share their value of discrimination and hatred. It is the same with having had three of the last four Secretaries of State be women. Did we worry that some countries would be offended? No. Because we value equality.

Supporting openly gay diplomats is no different than supporting other minorities. We give benefits to families because it is the right thing to do. And my family is no less valuable than Mr. Hoover's.

We live in a country where such offensive opinions can be spouted freely, and for that I am glad, but I wonder whether the Foreign Service Journal would have published a letter suggesting we not encourage racial minorities or women to join. I suspect not.

At any rate, I am glad I don't serve in the same Foreign Service he did. I am not even certain we served the same country. The country I serve values diversity and respects freedom and equality.

State's Job

Politico has an article on the House gutting DOD’s IO budget. Here's why they are slashing it:

"It’s propaganda. Why, the military’s got nothing to do with this. That should be in the State Department, in my estimation." Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.)

You can read the entire article here.

This is even funnier to me now that I am in Public Affairs (yes, I made it to the mother bureau at last!).

Brian Adkin’s killer sentenced to 17 years in Ethiopia

Brian Adkin’s killer sentenced to 17 years in Ethiopia

The Ethiopian man who murdered alumnus and Foreign Service Officer Brian Adkins in his home last February was sentenced to 17 years in prison, Adkins’ family and friends said.

Adkins, 25, was found dead in his home in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia’s capital city, where he was working for the U.S. State Department. In an e-mail sent to family, friends and The Hatchet, fellow alumnus and friend Michael Geremia decried the sentence for the unidentified Ethiopian man who confessed to killing Adkins in April.

“Such a lenient sentence, for such a heinous crime, makes a mockery of the principle of justice; undermines the safety of American diplomats everywhere, but particularly in Ethiopia; and lacks any serious deterrent value for future murders of Americans in Ethiopia,” Geremia said.

Adkins’ father, Dan, said the family was “devastated” by the sentence but added that the prosecution has already appealed the ruling.

“To try to make sense of all of this, all we can hope for is that Brian’s work was done here and he was taken to do more important work for our Lord,” Adkins’ father said in the e-mail. “Regardless of the sentencing, this doesn’t change the daily loss that we all feel.”

Though the Adkins’ father said he does not believe in the death penalty, he said he hoped his son’s killer would have received a life sentence, preventing him from ever committing another crime. To make matters worse for the family, Adkins’ father said his son’s killer was tried in Ethiopia, as extradition laws prevented the U.S. from trying the case, leaving his family with no say in the killer’s fate.

“This young man devastated our family and we did not get an opportunity to send a letter or state in court what was done to us,” Adkins’ father said in a phone interview Monday afternoon. “Over there we have no say. We would have no say when he comes up for parole, whether or not we feel after 10 years and nine months if he can be out on good behavior, and it’s not acceptable to me. Our hands are tied in this process. To me, all these young people are going over there with the idea they are safe and they’re not. If there are no repercussions [for committing this type of crime] what is going to keep people from robbing and killing.”

Adkins’ father said he did not know when a decision on the appeal would be made, however he said the process will most likely take months.

“We were told that they had very strict laws in that country back in February, and for this sentence to come down the way it did left us very disappointed,” Adkins’ father said. “The man, only being 18 years old now, can be really young when he gets out of prison. He can still commit this crime again.”

Adkins was honored by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as one of 231 Foreign Service Officers who has died while serving their tours of duty.

Bi-National Gay Couples Cry Out for Security

This is an issue facing many LGBT Foreign Service families. Our heterosexual colleagues can fall in love overseas and get immigration visas for their spouses. IN fact, because of their service, heterosexual Foreign Service Officers can get what is referred to as "expeditious naturalization" for their spouses, meaning the spouse does not have to live in the U.S. the requisite amount of time before being naturalized.

Not so for LGBT folks in the Foreign Service. We are still often not allowed to bring our partners back to the U.S. if we want to do a D.C. posting (which is necessary to advance your career) unless we can get them a student visa or, if possible, a work visa. And forget retiring to the country you spent your life serving unless you plan to leave behind the partner who served it with you.

Bi-National Gay Couples Cry Out for Security

Shortly before dawn on Jan. 28, a knock at the door turned the idyllic life of Shirley Tan and her family upside-down.

Agents from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement handed a deportation letter to Tan, the stay-at-home lesbian mom of 12-year-old twin boys. Stunned, Tan, who describes herself as a "housewife," told the agents she had never before seen the letter, dated 2002.

"I was handcuffed and taken away, like a criminal," Tan recently told the Senate Judiciary Committee, which called a first-ever hearing to look into the outrageous harm done to gay bi-national families by locking them out of the protections built into immigration law for heterosexual spouses of U.S. citizens.

"I was put into a van with two men in yellow jump suits and chains, and searched like a criminal. ... All the while, my family was first and foremost the center of everything on my mind," Tan added, as her son Jashley wept so hard that Chairman Patrick Leahy temporarily halted the hearing.

"Young man," the senator said, "your mother is a very brave woman."

Tan testified that she had applied for asylum in the United States after the release in the Philippines of the man who had killed her mother and sister and brutally beaten her. She said she thought her slow-moving appeal was still pending.

Over the years, Tan had built a good life in Pacifica, Calif., with her American partner, Jay Mercado, their sons and their Catholic church, where the couple sings in the choir and Tan is a Eucharistic minister.

Because Mercardo (like their sons) is a U.S. citizen, she could sponsor Tan for permanent resident status if they were a heterosexual married couple.

According to the 2000 Census, 36,000 mixed-nationality same-sex couples are in the same boat.
Nearly half, 16,000, are raising children. (For more information, go to immigrationequality.org.)

Tan remains in her adopted homeland thanks only to a two-year reprieve arranged by Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

It's wrong for partners of gay U.S. citizens to be so vulnerable. And it's long past time for Congress to help gay bi-national couples, many of whom now must live apart, connected only by cell phones and occasional visits.

The Uniting American Families Act, pending in the House and Senate, would fix the problem by recognizing gay "permanent partners" in immigration law.

The legislation — sponsored by heavy-hitters Leahy in the Senate and Jerry Nadler, who chairs a House Judiciary subcommittee — would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act so partners of gay U.S. citizens or of lawful permanent residents could legally settle here.

Eligibility rules — and the hefty penalties for fraud — would be virtually the same as for married heterosexuals. Nineteen countries — including Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain and Spain — have already taken such steps.

The Leahy-Nadler push recently got a boost when President Barack Obama put overhaul of the nation's broken immigration system on one of his White House's front burners.

If Congress finally passes immigration reform, the Leahy-Nadler fix might be folded into the overall package, finally giving the Tan-Mercado family and thousands of others the security they are crying out for.

As Tan told senators: "After 23 years building our life together, Jay and I know that our family is still at great risk of separation. We have a home together. Jay has a great job. We have a mortgage, a pension, friends and a community. We have everything together, and it would be impossible to re-establish elsewhere."

Basic fairness says they shouldn't have to try.

Deb Price of The Detroit News writes the first nationally syndicated column on gay issues. To find out more about Deb Price and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

OPM 'Wholeheartedly' Endorses Benefits for Same-Sex Partners

This from the Washington Post this morning. What a difference ten months can make.

OPM 'Wholeheartedly' Endorses Benefits for Same-Sex Partners

In case there was any lingering doubt from last fall about the government's position on providing full domestic benefits for same-sex partners of federal workers, Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry erased them yesterday.

The White House and OPM, he said at the top of his statement to a House hearing, "wholeheartedly endorse passage" of legislation that would provide them with health and retirement coverage.

His clear, declarative statement could not have been more of a turnaround from the agency's bumbling presentation in September. Then, an OPM official told a Senate committee that the Bush administration had no position on similar legislation, only to correct himself minutes later after an aide informed him that OPM actually opposed the bill.

The official's use of the movie "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry," an Adam Sandler film about two firefighters who pretend they are lovers so they can get domestic partner benefits, to demonstrate the dangers of insurance fraud, also left many incredulous.

But now the Obama administration has reversed the Bush administration's position, and the new policy was presented by the government's highest ranking openly gay official.

The current policy, Berry said, "is unjust and it directly undermines the Federal Government's ability to recruit and retain the nation's best workers. Historically, the federal government has in many ways been a progressive employer, but we're behind the private sector and 19 states, including Alaska and Arizona, on this one. Almost 60 percent of Fortune 500 companies already offer similar benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of their employees. . . . The Federal Government does not effectively compete with these companies for every talented person when we fail to offer comparable job benefits to our employees."

President Obama took a small but important step toward ending federal workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians when he issued a memorandum last month that allows same-sex partners of federal employees to be covered by federal long-term care insurance. The memorandum also allows the workers to use sick leave to care for their same-sex partners. But extending full benefits requires legislation of the sort being considered by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's federal workforce subcommittee.

Berry's argument did not convince Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, the top Republican on the subcommittee, which held the hearing. He said the bill "is directly discriminatory against heterosexual couples" who cohabitate without marriage. The legislation would not cover them.

Those couples, however, have the option to marry, which would allow them to be covered.

Berry does not have that option. He and his partner of 13 years would benefit from the bill because Berry's partner does not have employer-provided insurance.

Unlike some other hearings about federal workforce issues that were relatively lonely affairs, yesterday's session was packed with spectators who waited in a long line to get in. Many in the audience appeared to support the legislation, but not the Chaffetz-invited group of sharply dressed ministers from the Missionary Baptist Ministers Conference.

Pastor T.L. Rogers of Triumphant Church in Hyattsville was among those who says he thinks the bill would invite fraud because a non-gay couple could pretend to be lovers to reap the employee benefits. "If I have a cousin who does not have insurance, I can say he is my domestic partner," Rogers said in an interview.

[Digger comments: There is an easy solution to this. Pass federal same-sex marriage now.]

Of course, this version of the Chuck and Larry argument implies that large numbers of people would risk committing a federal crime, by signing an affidavit subject to perjury laws, that certifies the partner relationship meets a set of criteria that says, among other things, the couple share each other's financial obligations. Married couples don't have to submit such documentation.

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the chief sponsor of the legislation, said intentional false statements to obtain benefits could get culprits five years in prison or a $10,000 fine. As shot with holes as our health-care system is, it's still unlikely that many people would risk that punishment to get the federal benefits.

Baldwin noted that as a lesbian, she is denied the same level of compensation as her straight, married colleagues in Congress. She and her partner also are not subject, as they would be under the legislation, to the same obligations of married couples. In Baldwin's case that would include disclosure of her partner's income and debts.

Baldwin summed up the rationale for her bill with a simple statement about fairness. The purpose, she said, "is to ensure that hard-working Americans can no longer be denied equal compensation for equal work just because of who they love."

Written statements from the hearing are available here.

Still Waiting

So the memo is out. People are registering their domestic partners. Everything was to be in place for the start of the pay period beginning July 5.

I am still waiting.

We got our affidavits in on time. And we were even registered as a tandem for a day. Then our assignment techs came back and said they had to take that designation away until they got "more guidance." They said they wanted to make sure we weren't folded into each other's orders because since we are both officers, we each have our own orders.

So they listed us as domestic partners, pending "guidance."

The problem is they already have the guidance. They were told this should be done.

The bigger problem is that listing us as domestic partners rather than as a tandem is EXACTLY what would cause us to be folded into each other's orders.

Bureaucracy's can be frustrating.